1 microplastics in facial exfoliating cleansers michelle chang

Michelle Chang Microplastics in Facial Exfoliating Cleansers Spring 2013

1

Microplastics in Facial Exfoliating Cleansers

Michelle Chang

ABSTRACT

Research regarding marine pollution has primarily emphasized macroplastics (>5mm diameter),

but is increasingly focusing on the impacts of microplastics (<5mm) on the marine environment.

In my study, I observed microplastic beads found in nine facial exfoliating cleansers that listed

polyethylene as an ingredient. Three brands of nationally top-grossing facial cleansers available

in American supermarkets (Clean & Clear, L’Oreal, Neutrogena) were used to characterize size,

color, and mass of the polyethylene beads. The beads ranged from 60-800 m in diameter, with a

264 m overall mean, 102 standard deviation and a (254-274) 95% confidence interval. To

determine consumer use habits for these products, I surveyed a population of 175 individuals

over a period of three months via an online survey. I discovered that, though 35% of my sample

population used the microplastic-containing cleansers, 50% used alternatives that did not include

microplastics. Of those that did use microplastic-containing products, I used their usage rates and

frequencies to calculate annual microplastic contribution to the wastewater stream. I found that

Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser contributed most microplastic to the waste stream per

consumer per year (with 2.68g) while Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit,

contributed the least (0.539g/year). After modeling my survey results onto the UC Berkeley

student residential hall population, I estimated that a total of 5000 g of microplastic was going

into the waste stream annually. Knowing about microplastic pollution in the environment and

choosing natural alternatives can divert microplastic from the waste stream and mitigate potential

environmental risk.

KEYWORDS

polyethylene, market reports, consumer usage, wastewater stream, marine pollution


2

INTRODUCTION

Marine debris is any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded,

disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment (Galgani et al. 1996). A large

proportion of marine debris consists of plastics sourced from land use, wastewater and industrial

treatments, waste disposal, and shipboard dumping (Jeftic et al. 2009, Arthur and Baker 2011).

Microplastics are generally considered to be plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres in

diameter (Arthur et al. 2009). These particulates are accumulating in habitats and outnumbering

larger debris (Thompson et al. 2004, Browne et al. 2010). While studies have confirmed the

detrimental effects of macroplastics on marine ecosystems, only recently has research started

exploring the impacts of microplastics. The two sources of microplastic are fragments resulting

from the degradation of larger items such as bags and containers, and pellets used as feedstock in

the plastics industry and in certain applications such as abrasive cleansers (Bowmer and Kershaw

2010).

Abrasive scrub cleansers were developed when people realized that mechanical

exfoliation – the process of removing the outermost layer of skin with an abrasive material–

produces smoother skin (Decker and Graber 2012, Draelos 2005). Abrasive scrubs incorporate

natural and synthetic materials including polyethylene beads, aluminum oxide, ground fruit pits,

and sodium tetraborate decahydrate granules to induce various degrees of exfoliation (Mills

1979). According to the American Academy of Dermatology, polyethylene beads are commonly

used because their smoothness causes less redness and damage to the skin than some other

materials, such as ground fruit pits.

Polyethylene is the most commonly used plastic. Beads made of polyethylene in facial

cleansers have been found to be from 4 µm to 1mm in size, which makes them a form of

microplastics (Fendall and Sewell 2009, Piringer and Baner 2008). A 2009 study by the

University of Auckland in New Zealand revealed that because the majority of facial cleansers

now contain polyethylene microplastics, the average person is now likely to use cleansing

products with microplastics on a daily basis. Consumers tend to focus on personal health benefits

or hazards while purchasing products with less focus on the environmental impacts of their

products. Plastic persists in the environment and has a slow degradation rate. If microplastics


3

from facial cleansers are entering the wastewater stream from consumer usage, whether they are

filtered our may be a concern to the marine environment.

Microplastics that escape filtration have the potential to persist in the environment, travel

long distances, serve as surface on which organisms grow, and attract organic contaminants

(Arthur and Baker 2011). Research has shown that suspension-feeding sea cucumbers along with

range of organisms including mussels, barnacles, lugworms, and tiny crustaceans do ingest

plastic particles, though it is unknown if plastic ingestion adversely affects their physiology or

fitness (Graham et al. 2009). New research also suggests that polyethylene is an excellent

transporter of hydrophobic organic contaminants such as phenanthrene, a byproduct of fossil fuel

burning that is a dangerous ocean pollutant (Teuten et al. 2007). The potential chemical impacts

of the microplastics themselves are still unknown.

To date, no one has detected consumer cleansing product plastic beads in the

environment, yet their presence is almost certain due to existing wastewater treatment filtration

methods and observed sizes of the plastic beads. Barriers to detection lie mainly in the

methodological challenges of quantifying tiny plastic fragments in the environment (Loe 2012,

Browne et al. 2010). Thus, there is a need to take steps toward clarifying the risks on the natural

environment of using products that contain microplastics. To address these gaps in knowledge, I

will attempt to characterize the physical properties of the polyethylene beads, determine how

much polyethylene from facial scrubs enters the wastewater stream by surveying consumer use,

and explore the ramifications of microplastics going unfiltered into the ocean.

METHODS

Selecting Product Samples

I characterized the leading skincare brands from Mintel Reports (academic.mintel.com),

an online database of market reports on the beauty and personal care, drink, food, foodservice,

health and wellbeing, household, lifestyles, retailing and apparel, consumer technology, and

travel industries. Mintel is an independent, award-winning provider of world-leading market

intelligence, delivering robust information, analysis and critical recommendations. I used the

brand share information, which provided the annual top grossing brands of facial cleansers and


4

acne washes in the U.S., to determine from which brands to sample (Appendix A). I selected the

three top grossing brands, which were Neutrogena, Clean & Clear, and L’Oreal Paris. To narrow

down which products within these brands to sample, I observed the reviews and ratings of

various products on Amazon.com. I also consulted the local Walgreens in Berkeley, CA to

determine which products were available and accessible to the majority of my survey population.

With the assumption that consumers purchased items online that received higher ratings and

reviews, and bought items that were available in stores, I decided on 5 Neutrogena, 3 Clean &

Clear and 1 L’Oreal Paris cleanser for a total of 9 product samples (Table 1). I selected these

particular quantities of products within the three brands to sample according to their relative

rankings in Mintel’s top-grossing brand share report. All sample products listed polyethylene in

their ingredient list.

Table 1. Product information. Selected product brands, names and approximate prices.

Brand Product Price (USD)

Clean & Clear Morning Burst Scrub Oil-free 10

Clean & Clear Deep Action Exfoliating Scrub Oil-free 6

Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser 6

L'Oreal 360 Go Clean 5

Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Daily Scrub 7

Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub 6

Neutrogena Deep Clean Gentle Scrub 6

Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Foaming Scrub 6

Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit 6

Microplastic Bead Quantification

To characterize the polyethylene beads in the cleansers, I separated beads from 3ml

extractions of each product by washing with distilled water and vacuum filtering over coffee

filters cut into 9 cm diameter circles. The microplastic beads characteristics I examined were (a)

size, (b) color, (c) volume, (d) mass, and (e) concentration in product. I used a dissecting scope at


5

40X magnification with an ocular micrometer with 1000 marks calibrated to 1 mm to observe the

size and colors of the beads. For each brand I measured the diameters in number marks, which I

later converted to microns and millimeters, of the first 10 pieces of microplastic I encountered in

each extraction, and did five measurement repetitions (Total N = 50 pieces per brand). Using R

statistical analysis, I retrieved the mean, median, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and standard

deviations (SD) for the bead sizes examined in each extraction. The bead sizes in microns were

used for comparison to wastewater filter sizes, and the sizes in millimeters were used to calculate

volume of microplastic in each extraction as well as in each entire bottle of product. I made my

calculations with the assumption that each bead was a sphere. I used the mass of beads from each

extraction along with consumer survey results to determine consumer contribution of

microplastic through usage. To determine the concentration of beads in each product, I placed

the filtered beads into a 36 cm2 gridded square petri dish. The petri dish was shaken to distribute

the beads. For each product, I chose three 1 cm2 squares at random, and counted the number of

beads that occurred in each square. I averaged the number of beads from the three counts and

determined the mean number of beads that occurred in one square. I multiplied the mean by the

total number of squares encompassing the petri dish for the number of beads per 3 ml of product.

I scaled up the calculations to attain bead count for the whole bottle of each sample product.

Survey for Consumer Use

To obtain customer usage data, I used SurveyMonkey to compile a nine-question online

survey (Appendix B), which I distributed through email and various social media including

Facebook, Pinterest, Google+, and Twitter. The population consisted of mainly my peers,

friends, family, and acquaintances. I surveyed 175 consumers over a span of 3 months. The

survey asked participants for their demographics, including age, race and income, which brand of

cleanser they used, how much of it they used, how often they used it, and if they knew there were

microplastics in facial cleansers. I used the survey results to model onto a larger population with

similar demographics in order to estimate consumer microplastic contribution into the

wastewater stream.

Modeling Microplastic in Wastewater Stream


6

To estimate the amount of microplastic entering the East Bay wastewater treatment

facility from consumer cleanser usage, I made calculations using the usage survey results and

bead size data. In the consumer survey, I asked the frequency with which each consumer used

the product, and how much they used during each application. I used photos imbedded in the

survey to demonstrate three various amounts to select from (quarter, nickel, and dime-sized). To

calculate how much microplastic was in each application amount of every sample product, I

divided the mass of microplastic filtered from each 3ml extraction of product by 3, then

multiplied by the volume of product that made up the size of each coin. For each survey

response, I multiplied the selected usage frequency with its respective usage amount and scaled it

up to grams per year for each survey participant’s personal contribution of microplastic. I sorted

all the responses and totaled them by sample types (A-I) to compare microplastic contribution

across the products.

To examine microplastic contribution on a larger scale, I modeled my results onto a

population with similar demographics, the UC Berkeley student housing resident population. The

student dormitories included Clark Kerr with 900 residents, Foothill with 791 residents, Bowles

with 192 residents, Stern with 267 residents, and the Units 1, 2, and 3 with 1434, 1435, and 1240

residents for a total of 6259 residents (housing.berkeley.edu). Using the bootstrapping method in

R, I was able to resample from my survey results data by simulating the sample size to 1000 for

each product sample to estimate a more accurate usage mean (g/yr) to calculate usage from the

entire student housing population. With estimated means for each product, I multiplied the

percentages of my surveyed population who used each product by the total resident hall

population as well as the means. These calculations gave me microplastic contribution from the

resident hall population for a year given the assumption that they used the sampled products at

similar rates and frequencies to my survey population.

RESULTS

Characteristics of Microplastic Beads

I observed variations in microplastic bead sizes, yet the means and medians of each

product were relatively similar. Microbead sizes ranged from 60-800 µm in diameter, with an


7

overall mean of 264 microns and standard deviation of 102 microns (Table 2.) Products D,

L’Oreal 360 Go Clean and F, Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub had the smallest beads at 60

microns, while Product E, Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Daily Scrub had the largest at 800

microns. Product F, Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub had the largest variation in sizes (60-

540) with a SD of 130 (Table 2, Figure 1, 2).

The SA/Volume ratios were consistently low (0.02-0.03) and bead mass per 1 ml of

product varied little across the products (0.09-1 g). Product F, Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily

Scrub contained the most volume of plastic at 149 m3 per bottle while Product I, Neutrogena Oil-

free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit contained the least at 15.5 m3 per bottle (Table 3).

Table 2. Microplastic Measurements. Size of microplastic beads in nine facial exfoliating cleansers. N=50 beads

per product sample: (A) Clean & Clear Morning Burst Scrub Oil-free, (B) Clean & Clear Deep Action Exfoliating

Scrub Oil-free, (C) Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser, (D) L'Oreal 360 Go Clean, (E) Neutrogena Oil-free Acne

Wash Daily Scrub, (F) Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub, (G) Neutrogena Deep Clean Gentle Scrub, (H)

Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Foaming Scrub, (I) Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit

Product Mean (microns) SD Range Median 95% CI

A 272 89 100-500 240 247-297

B 271 81 120-520 260 248-294

C 183 58 80-400 200 167-200

D 215 98 60-420 200 187-242

E 317 110 200-800 300 285-350

F 265 130 60-540 260 230-301

G 274 120 120-600 250 241-307

H 286 120 100-600 240 256-316

I 293 120 180-600 270 264-322


8

Figure 1. Photomicrographs of the microplastics and colored inclusions in facial cleanser products A-I. Scale

bar in all panels 500 µm. All products included white, opaque microplastic beads. Brand D contained walnut husk

fragments as additional abrasive material. Other colored material composition unknown.


9

Figure 2. Box plot of bead sizes. Minimal variance between the means.

Table 3. Microplastic Surface Area to Volume Ratio, Concentration, and Mass.

Survey results: Consumer Product Usage

I found that 75% of the surveyed consumers use facial scrubs, yet 72% of consumers are

not aware that certain cleansers contained plastic (Table 4). Half of the surveyed consumers did

not use any of the samples in my study. Of the 35% who did use my sample products, most (9%)

Product SA/Volume Bead volume/bottle (m3) Bead mass/ 1ml product (g)

A 0.02 34.7 0.09

B 0.02 23.7 0.08

C 0.03 36.3 0.09

D 0.03 101 0.08

E 0.02 43.5 0.08

F 0.02 149 0.1

G 0.02 25 0.09

H 0.02 41.2 0.08

I 0.02 15.5 0.08


10

used Product E, Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Daily Scrub, while none used Product D,

L'Oreal 360 Go Clean. A trend I saw in the “Other” products used was that 9.7% of the total

surveyed consumers used St. Ives Apricot scrub cleanser.

Factoring in consumer usage frequencies and rates from the survey, I discovered that on

an average per consumer rate, Product F, Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub contributed the

most microplastic annually at 2.68 g/yr while Product I, Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Pink

Grapefruit contributed the least at 0.54 g/yr (Figure 3). Summing up all consumer responses for

each product, I found that Product A, Clean & Clear Morning Burst Scrub Oil-free contributed

the most microplastic annually at 10.5 g/yr while Product H, Neutrogena Deep Clean

Invigorating Foaming Scrub contributed the least at 1.83 g/yr (Figure 4).

I determined that my surveyed population demographics (61% Asian race, 31% earning

$0-$24,999/yr, and 69% aged 21-29) were similar to the demographics of the UC Berkeley

student housing population (Table 5). Scaling up my survey responses, I calculated the total

annual microplastic contribution from the student housing to be 5000 g (Table 6).

Table 4. Survey Responses. N=175 participants.

Question Percentage %

Do you use a facial scrub?

Yes 75%

No 20%

Product used

Clean & Clear Morning Burst Scrub Oil-free 6.29%

Clean & Clear Deep Action Exfoliating Scrub Oil-free 4.00%

Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser 1.71%

L'Oreal 360 Go Clean 0.00%

Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Daily Scrub 9.14%

Neutrogena Clear Pore Daily Scrub 1.14%

Neutrogena Deep Clean Gentle Scrub 2.86%

Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Foaming Scrub 1.71%

Neutrogena Oil-free Acne Wash Pink Grapefruit 8.00%

Other 49.7%

NA 15.4%


11

Figure 3. Average annual microplastic contribution per consumer by product. Product F contributes the most

microplastic annually per individual consumer use.

Figure 4. Total Annual Microplastic Contribution by Product. Sum of annual consumer usage according to

brand.

0 1 2 3

D

I

E

B

H

A

G

C

F

mass (g)

Pro

du

ct

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

D

H

B

C

F

G

I

E

A

Mass (g)

Pro

du

ct

Are you aware that there are plastics in certain facial scrubs?

Yes 28%

No 72%


12

Figure 5. Box plot Annual Consumer usage rates by brand

Table 5. Survey Demographics

Background Variable Sample Background Variable Sample

%

%

Age

Income

17 and under 1% $0-$24,999 31%

18-20 18% $25,000-$49,999 17%

21-29 69% $50,000-$74,999 13%

30-39 6% $75,000-$99,999 7%

40-49 4% $100,000-$124,999 6%

50-59 2% $125,000-$149,999 5%

$150,000-$174,999 6%

Race

$175,000-$199,999 4%

White 22% $200,000 and up 11%

Asian 61%

Black or African American 2%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 3%

American Indian or Alaska Native 1%

Other 11%


13

Table 6. Modeling survey usage rates on UC Berkeley student residential hall population.

Total population = 6259 residents. Total annual microplastic contribution 5000 g.

Product Usage rate Dorm users Bootstrap mean Dorm use (g/yr)

A 18.03% 1130 0.95 1070

B 11.48% 718 0.57 412

C 4.92% 308 1.51 465

D 0.00% 0 0 0

E 26.23% 1640 0.57 931

F 3.28% 205 2.66 545

G 8.20% 513 1.14 585

H 4.92% 308 0.61 188

I 22.95% 1440 0.54 783

DISCUSSION

Polyethylene in facial scrubs as a source of microplastic marine pollution is poorly

understood. By characterizing the physical properties of microplastic beads found in a sample of

products, I found little variation in sizes and colors across brands. This suggests that producers

may have a uniform standard. The bead sizes in the products I sampled were all small enough to

bypass filtration in certain wastewater treatment facilities. From my survey, I discovered that

though my sample population was using the microplastic-containing cleansers, many used

alternatives that did not include microplastics. The majority of my survey population did use a

facial scrub, but were not aware that it contained plastic particles. Combining microplastic

characterization with consumer use and opinion, I gathered from this study new insights into an

unexpected source of potential plastic pollution.

Microplastic characterization

The microplastics I found in the facial scrub products had sizes close to the overall mean,

signifying that there is minimal variation across brands. Particle size is most likely kept to a

roughly standard size because an abrasive on the skin that is too large can be too harsh on the

skin, while a one that is miniscule could prove to be ineffective as an abrasive. While measuring

the microplastics size, beads often got caught in the syringe I used; thus the volume of


14

microplastics may have been underestimated. It was also difficult to replicate exact amounts of

product in each sample as the products differed in viscosity.

I found that the microplastic beads were all white and opaque in colors, which fall under

the color categories of microplastics commonly found in the North Pacific Central Gyre (NPCG).

These colors are similar to those of the area’s plankton, a primary food source for surface

feeding fish (Boerger et al. 2010). In one study, white, opaque spherules were selectively

consumed by 8 species of fish out of 14 species examined (Carpenter et al. 1972); thus, there is a

high likelihood that cleanser microplastics making it to the ocean could be mistaken for plankton

by a number of fish species. Though the exact physiological effects of plastic ingestion still

require further study, ingestion of plastics may lead to intestinal blockage in smaller fish and risk

of polychlorinated biphenyls absorption. (Derraik 2002) The low surface to volume ratio

indicates a slower degradation rate, which is concerning, since polyethylene takes years to break

down.

Consumer Survey

I surveyed 175 individuals through an online survey, which yielded results I did not

anticipate. Forty-nine point seven percent of surveyed consumers did not use any of the products

I chose to sample; instead, these people used alternatives, most of which did not contain

microplastics. My survey population was made up of primarily friends and family as my survey

was distributed through social media. There could have been bias as my target audience mostly

resided in the Bay Area, a community of more environmentally conscious individuals and not

quite an accurate portrayal of the nationwide consumer use. (Svoboda et al. 2008)

From those who did use the products I sampled, I modeled product use onto the UC

Berkeley student residential hall community nationwide scale and found that 5000 g of

microplastic was going into the wastewater stream per year. If consumers switched over to

natural alternative cleansers, 5000 g of microplastic - the equivalent of 2500 Ziploc sandwich

bags (16.5 cm x 14.9 cm) - could be diverted from the wastewater stream every year.

Of the alternatives listed by my survey respondents, St. Ives Apricot Scrub was the most

popular brand used instead of Neutrogena, Lo’real, and Clean & Clear. Instead of microplastic,

St. Ives uses crushed walnut husk as an abrasive material. To explore this trend, I asked several


15

people why they found St. Ives appealing and they specified that the inviting image of the

apricot, the packaging, and the price seemed attractive to them.

To gather more insight on consumer buying behavior, I conducted a quick follow-up

survey (Appendix C) asking consumers what motivated them towards their purchasing decisions.

Using a Likert scale of importance, I found that the majority of consumers considered price as

moderately important, product effectiveness as very or extremely important, product packaging

as slightly important, and were highly influenced by graphics as well as the bottle shape.

Consumers specified that within the graphics, they paid attention to layout of text, text color

(particularly bright colors), description of effectiveness, pictures, and creative and visually

appealing patterns. They also mostly considered having knowledge of the ingredient list as

slightly important and the environmental impacts of the product as moderately important, while

all consumers considered their products safe to use. Knowing that there is plastic in the product,

most consumers are not at all likely to purchase it, and would very likely stop using a product

that they now know contains plastic.

Cosmetic and personal care product packaging has evolved from simple utilitarian

containers to commercial works of art that entice the consumer to purchase the contents.

Consumers have become more aware of environmental issues and have now become increasingly

aware of the negative impact of superfluous packaging, opting for more “eco-friendly” or “green

packaging”. Not only does the package have to be visually and sensually appealing, but it must

also encompass the essence of naturalness, environmental compatibility, and

healthfulness (Rosette et. al 2012).

Wastewater Treatment

Knowing the potential amount of microplastic that is entering the wastewater stream, I

wanted to know how it would be treated by wastewater facilities. East Bay Municipal Utilities

District’s (EBMUD) provides water and sewage treatment for customers in portions of Alameda

County and Contra Costa County in California, on the eastern side of the San Francisco bay,

which are the primary residential areas of my survey population.

A maximum of 2.2 million gallons per day (MGD) of the annual average daily plant flow

of 62 MGD can be processed through the EBMUD’s East Bayshore Water Recycling Plant,


16

which includes a microfiltration system in its tertiary treatment process with a filter size of 0.1

microns. The remaining flow receives secondary treatment only and does not undergo filtration

prior to discharge to San Francisco Bay. EBMUD allows 96% of its 62 million gallons to go

unfiltered every day. Therefore, microplastics are highly likely to bypass filtration and go

straight into the wastewater stream; in the Bay Area, most of this wastewater is diverted directly

to the ocean (Vincent De Lange, EBMUD Senior Civil Engineer).

A previous study found that the largest recorded abundance and mass of plastic found in

the surface layer of the Pacific Ocean was 334,271 pieces/km2 and 5114 g/km2 2, respectively.

Plankton abundance was approximately five times higher than that of plastic, but the mass of

plastic was approximately six times that of plankton. (Moore et al. 2001) Clearly, plastics have

been escaping wastewater filtration and going into the ocean.

Future directions

Given the evidence from my current study that a large volume of microplastics may be

entering the environment, further studies should be done to quantify these amounts. The most

easily accessible places to begin would be with urban beaches to determine if any particulates

found are sourced from facial scrubs. These particulates would be analyzed and compared to the

beads I found in my study samples according to size and color. A nationwide survey of product

use would be helpful to determine the volume of plastic being used by a more diverse

demographic. An opinion survey could also be useful to see what motivates consumers to

purchase certain brands and if behavior changes can be made if plastic in facial cleansers is made

more explicit to consumers.

Broader Implications and Conclusions

My study explored a source of plastic pollution and its journey from consumer to

wastewater stream. Now that facial scrubs are recognized as potential sources of microplastics

pollution with the risk of ingestion by marine organisms, wastewater facilities should take note

and adjust their filtering practices accordingly. Consumers should educate themselves and avoid

microplastic-containing cleansers to minimize their contribution to plastic pollution. Plastics


17

affect marine biota and take a long time to degrade. Perhaps increasing the appeal of alternative

organic facial scrubs and alerting people to the damage microplastics can do to the marine

environment can be used to shift consumer behavior and usage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you ES 196 team, Patina Mendez, Kurt Spreyer, Carrie Cizauskas, Anne Murrary and

Rachael Marzion for providing constant guidance throughout the whole process. Special thanks

to my mentor Patina Mendez for helping me develop my methods and analysis and connecting

me with the Resh Lab, where I was able to perform the majority of my methods, as well as

Carrie Cizauskas for painstakingly going over my writing and working with me through the

challenges of shaping my thesis. ES196ers, Katrina Velasco and Janet Hsiao helped me access

the Resh Lab on multiple occasions. Vince de Lange of East Bay Municipal Utility District gave

me specifics on the wastewater treatment process. Thank you Dara O’Rouke and Richard Park,

who answered my numerous questions and fostered my initial interest to analyze cosmetics with

their online database, The GoodGuide. My dear roommate, Diana Li suggested the bootstrap

analysis for my data. Last, but certainly not least, thank you my fellow Mini moles, Toby Haass

Walpert, Jeffrey Wong, Emily Gilson, Robin Kim, and Gabriella Vozza for peer editing as well

as moral support.

REFERENCES

Arthur, C., J. Baker, and H. Bamford, editors. Proceedings of the international research

workshop on the occurrence, effects, and fate of microplastic marine debris. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30.

Arthur, C. and J. Baker, editors. Proceedings of the second research workshop on

microplastic debris. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-39. University of

Washington, Tacoma, Washington, USA.

Boerger, C. M., Lattin, G. L., Moore, S. L., and Moore, C. J. 2010. Plastic ingestion by

planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:

2275-2278.


18

Browne, M. A., T. S. Galloway, and R. C. Thompson. 2010. Spatial patterns of plastic debris

along estuarine shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology 44: 3404-3409.

Browne, M. A., P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway, and R. Thompson.

2011. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks.

Environmental Science & Technology 45:9175–9179.

Bowmer, T. and Kershaw, P. 2010. Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on

microplastic particles as a vector in transporting persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic

substances in the oceans. 28-30th June 2010, UNESCO-IOC, Paris. GESAMP Reports &

Studies No. 82

Carpenter, E.J., Anderson, S.J., Harvey, G.R., Miklas, H.P., and Peck, B.B. 1972. Polystyrene

spherules in coastal waters. Science 178: 749-750.

Derraik, J. G. B. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.

Decker, A. and E. M. Graber. 2012. Over-the-counter acne treatments: a review. Journal of

Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology 5: 36.

Draelos, Z.D. 2005. Reexamining methods of facial cleansing. Cosmetic Dermatology 18: 172–

175.

Fendall, L. S., and M. A. Sewell. 2009. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face:

Microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:1225–1228.

Galgani, F., A. Souplet, and Y. Cadiou. 1996. Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor off

the French Mediterranean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 142: 225-234.

Graham, E. R., and J. T. Thompson. 2009. Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers

(Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology 368:22–29.

Jeftic, L., S. Sheavly, and E. Adler. 2009. Marine litter: a global challenge. United Nations

Environment Programme 232.

Loe, V. 2012. What is plastic doing in my face scrub? NOAA’s Response and Restoration Blog.

< http://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/what-is-plastic-doing-in-my-

face-scrub/> Accessed 10/4/12

Mills, O. H. and A. M. Kligman. 1979. Evaluation of abrasives in acne therapy. Cutis 23:704-

705.


19

Mintel Reports

Moore, C. J. 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-

term threat. Environmental Research 108: 131-139.

Piringer, O. T. and A. L. Baner. 2008. Plastic packaging: interactions with food and

pharmaceuticals. John Wiley & Sons. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany.

R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL

http://www.R-project.org.

Rosette, J. L., Yablonski, J., Mancuso, S. and Kale, G. 2012. Packaging, Cosmetics and

Pharmaceuticals. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 1–14.

Svoboda, E., E. Mika, and S. Berhie. 2008. America’s 50 Greenest Cities. Popsci.

<http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities >

Accessed 3/20/13

Teuten, E. L., S. J. Rowland, T. S. Galloway, and R. C. Thompson. 2007. Potential for plastics to

transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science & Technology 41:7759–

7764.

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D.

McGonigle, and A. E. Russell. 2004. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304:

5672

http://www.r-project.org/


20

APPENDIX A: Brand Share Information

Figure 1. Annual top-grossing facial cleansers brands, 2011-12. Data from Mintel Reports.

Company Brand

Rolling 52 weeks ending

February 20, 2011

$million

Rolling 52 weeks

ending February 19,

2012 $million

Johnson & Johnson Total 198 221

Neutrogena 31 39

Neutrogena Deep Clean 32 32

Johnsons Clean & Clear Morning Burst 22 26

Johnsons Clean & Clear 16 15

Johnsons Clean & Clear Deep Action 14 15

Neutrogena Naturals 1 15

Figure 2. Annual top-grossing acne treatment brands, 2011-12

Company Brand

Rolling 52 weeks ending

February 20, 2011 $

million

Rolling 52 weeks

ending February 19,

2012 $ million

Johnson & Johnson Total 196 201

Neutrogena Oil Free Acne Wash 46 49

Aveeno Clear Complexion 20 19

Johnsons Clean & Clear Advantage 16 17

Neutrogena Acne Stress Control 17 16

Neutrogena Rapid Clear 14 14

Neutrogena Clear Pore 10 12


21

APPENDIX B: Consumer Survey

Figure 1. Online Survey Questions. 9-question survey created with SurveyMonkey and distributed over a period of

3 months to 175 individuals.


22


23


24

APPENDIX C: Follow-up survey

Figure 1. Follow-up online survey on consumer purchasing behavior.


25


26

1 microplastics in facial exfoliating cleansers michelle chang

Documents